the vynsane asylum

Okay, in my little mock-treatise on "fugly sexiness," I threw out a random comment about "survival of the ugliest." And this got me thinking, and now I'm at something of an impasse.

From a scientific standpoint, why do guys find some women to be hot and some not so hot?

As dumb a question as it sounds, think about it. From an evolutionary standpoint, we, as animals, should want to find mates who can produce the most and the healthiest offspring. Women tend to be attracted to money, power, strength, intelligence, or some combination. In short, the traits that make people the "fittest" in human society.

But think about it from a man's perspective, and it makes less sense. I could show fifty pictures of random women, and we'd probably be more or less in agreement on which ones we find attractive. But it's totally based on looks. And it'd be completely different responses if we showed the same pictures from a similar cross-section of guys from 50, 100, 200, 1000 years ago. (If you don't believe me, look at women that were considered attractive in the 1890s. Ick.)

So, dumb as it sounds, why are guys attracted to certain women, when other women who would have the physical or mental traits more closely associated with "successful" (or "fittest") are "ugly"?

Stupid sounding question, I know, and wide open for goofy comments. But can anyone here come up with an answer?

There was a documentary on this on the Discovery channel about this, and I can't remember enough of it to give you the answer. I suppose that's why I stick with engineering and construction rather than biology. In the documentary, they went through all sorts of races and cultures with their research. I remember them taking measurements of facial features and talking about ratios and proportions of those features to determine what is "attactive." And you are right, giving any number of photos of women, we would all more or less agree on the hot or not thing.

I know usually I don't like 'em too skinny, but I make exceptions.

Is a pearl necklace considered a facial feature?

Rogue II wrote:I know usually I don't like 'em too skinny, but I make exceptions.

In other words, Shirley Manson, eh?

yeah, or something like Courtney Cox from the early-Friends episodes...but not the Courtney Cox from the Dancing in the Dark video. I'm sure that was really a young boy.

probably due to evolution it's totally unnecessary to have the male mind predominantly hard-wired toward beauty when there are more admirable traits to go by nowadays, but take neanderthalensis - a being inhabiting a harsh world. the male needs to be a good provider for the woman and any offspring, therefore even today, successful, talented men are more attractive to women. on the filpside, however, the male needs to see that the prospective mate will be healthy enough to see his progeny raised well, in addition to the fact that a healthy mom makes a healthy child. the healthier you are, the more attractive you are, and thus beauty is the first outward sign of a healthy mate.

and a pearl necklace is considered more of an accessory. a facial blast would be a facial feature.

Men don't have to go for the "fittest" because we already have the "power" and what not. We don't like to rely on women to support us therefore we just need them to look good enough to put us higher in social circles. The better looking the woman then the better off you'll be in life.